Welcome to the War Yanks!

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

As the Nazi German Army was already out and beyond any reparation in 1944, the Yanks (and Brits, Canadians, Free Poles, etc) didn't actually save us French from speaking German. But they saved us from being "liberated" by the Soviets, speaking Russian, parading with red flags each May 1, and having Marcel Dassault work for the Mikoyan-Gurevitch Board. That's enough to say: "Thanks to you all!"

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Our pleasure Capitaine Vengeur. Of course, we did owe you for the help you gave us a while back in that little bruhaha we had with King George III.

 

.

 

.

 

Oh, and those two video postings were classic!

 

.

[JFM 18]

.

 

Our pleasure Capitaine Vengeur. Of course, we did owe you for the help you gave us a while back in that little bruhaha we had with King George III.

 

.

 

+1

 

I mention this often to the "the French owe us" idiots I see online and invariably they have no idea what I am talking about. It's almost as embarrassing as "Freedom Fries."

[Hasse Wind 46]

Living in a country that had to fight twice for its very existence against Stalin's Soviet Union, I can say with good faith that the Western Allies saved countless lives and a whole way of living when they crushed Nazi Germany and liberated Western Europe before the Soviets came. Too bad it was too late for Eastern Europe. Stalin was just as crazy and evil as his dictator colleague Hitler.

[Shiloh 12]

If we all got along, then there would be no wars and that would make history really boring. I'm born in the U.S., my father is 100% Russian and my mom 100% Italian and my uncle trained with the Canadian airforce flying B-29's during WW2 (he never saw action) so I'm a bit spread out with my loyalties. But I will say the U.S. getting involved in both wars was certainly timely and helped sway the tide for the allies in each case.

[Lewie 7]

Well...I still love the Yanks anyhow!

 

Likewise, I'm a bit of an Anglophile anyways, and I've been to your country for 3 weeks in October, ( brrrr!) It was during the late 70's and you folks were keeping your homes and businesses at about 48 degrees. It was a small culture shock to this somewhat spoiled American.

 

Things I really liked about you English was ( and still do.) your sly humor, the fantastic museums, my first taste of decent beer, the complete and utter brilliance of driving on the wrong side of the road, and the British Rail system. Yeah, I'm easily entertained..

 

Although they wouldn't let me drive a car in Ol' Blighty, I did get to do a small amount of bicycling and rode my host's moped for 25 miles on small roads between Coventry and Leamington Spa. That was something I'll always remember.

 

Thanks for letting this questionable Yank into your country, I swear I tried to leave it in as close to it's original condition as I found it.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Lewie

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

I agree completely Lewie; I loved living in England and touring around the British Isles. And I loved travelling about Europe for three years as well, getting to visit other wonderful countries such as Germany and France and Belgium and Italy and the Netherlands. Met a lot of great people throughout. And believe you me, I needed the exposure. My father was American-born of 100% Norwegian stock while my American-born mother was of 50% Norwegian and 50% Swedish heritage. "GASP! Mixed blood, MIXED BLOOD!" Honestly, where I grew up, our idea of racial diversity WAS someone like my mother. I had to travel around Europe just to add some perspective and flavor to my midwestern-US-white-bread-and-mayo existence. Before I went overseas I though ethnic food was Danish pastry.

 

.

[Lewie 7]

.

 

I agree completely Lewie; I loved living in England and touring around the British Isles. And I loved travelling about Europe for three years as well, getting to visit other wonderful countries such as Germany and France and Belgium and Italy and the Netherlands. Met a lot of great people throughout. And believe you me, I needed the exposure. My father was American-born of 100% Norwegian stock while my American-born mother was of 50% Norwegian and 50% Swedish heritage. "GASP! Mixed blood, MIXED BLOOD!" Honestly, where I grew up, our idea of racial diversity WAS someone like my mother. I had to travel around Europe just to add some perspective and flavor to my midwestern-US-white-bread-and-mayo existence. Before I went overseas I though ethnic food was Danish pastry.

 

.

 

I'm getting an impression of Lake Woebegone Days here Lou, I have to love Minnesotan culture because it's still so linked with their Nordic descendants. A close friend of mine's parents were from Minnestota and her mom had that Swedish lilt even though she was second generation American. So I take it in Norwegian opinion that Swedish girls were a bit, nudge, nudge, wink, wink....

 

Oh yeah I also spent a week in France, where they did let me drive a car, although it was a right hand steering wheel from England and I had a bit of trouble with the bulk of the car being on my left, and they demanded that said car have these silly amber plastic headlight covers.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

I live a little over an hour away from the Lake Wobegon Trail...seriously. And to the views held by the various Scandinavians towards each other: The Swedes feel the Norwegians are a bit coarse and rough round the edges, while the Norskies find the Swedish pious and a bit uppity. The Danes are practically Germans so we don't have much to do with them, (except for their pastry). And the Finlanders, well, they're so far out there on the edge that nobody can figure them out.

 

.

[Olham 164]

The Danes are practically Germans so we don't have much to do with them...

What??? The Danish sausages are neon pink! Their beer is - well - not like German beer!

Their language is totally ununderstandable for us! The only thing that really connects them

with Germany is their mainland. They are Vikings! Not Germans!

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Really Olham, you want to play the 'Viking' card in your defense that the Danes aren't practically Germans. Hmmm, let's see now...Richard Wagner, (a German), and his infamous "Walkürenritt"? I seem to recall a few horned helmuts being worn in that little bit of German opera. So, nyaaaaahhh.

 

.

[Lewie 7]

.

 

Really Olham, you want to play the 'Viking' card in your defense that the Danes aren't practically Germans. Hmmm, let's see now...Richard Wagner, (a German), and his infamous "Walkürenritt"? I seem to recall a few horned helmuts being worn in that little bit of German opera. So, nyaaaaahhh.

 

.

 

LOL OOohh! that'll leave a mark. I gotta say the Danish wimmins in their Brass Bustiers of those operas look pretty Germanic to me.

[Olham 164]

Richard Wagner, (a German), and his infamous "Walkürenritt"? I seem to recall a few horned helmuts being worn in that little bit of German opera. So, nyaaaaahhh.

Ah, bah! Horned helmets! Tch!! The Vikings never wore horned helmets; it's an archeologist's error.

They were drinking horns, layn beside the head of the dead kings, so they'd find them better in Walhalla.

Okay, back in those days, there was a lot of commotion in Europe, and Siegfried's secret love, Brynhild,

may have been a princess from Island even (stronger as most men!).

So there are relations, of course.

Same with England, which was settled by Angles and Saxons. Vikings founded places like Wittby and Hull there.

Yeah, Europe was another big melting pot, that's true.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Olham

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

My dad was in SOE during the War, and spent most of his time with the French Resistance...He loved his time there...though it must have been terrifying at times, when he thought what would have happened to him, had the Nazis caught him.

 

I still have an original German Helmet, that my dad 'Liberated' from a German HQ in 1945. (actually, he swapped it with a German Prisoner, for some Chocolate and a packet of Cigarettes)...he also had a pair of Shoulder Pips from a German Officer, and a leather Luger holster...but sadly, he lost them on the way back to his Guernsey Home

 

This was his opinion of two types of Soldiers he came across during the War

 

Germans: He respected the German's Immensly, for their Dicipline and devotion to Duty..and the fact that their Helmets made extremely good Piss pots!

 

Americans: quite some people!..."Good Soldiers...provided they were well stocked with Chewing Gum...never appeared to like their Ammunition very much....because they always insisted on using up as much of it as possible, without hitting anything!"

 

He was particularly respectful of the D-Day American Paratroopers (the Screaming Eagles) whom he said, were, in his opinion, the Finest, Bravest and skilled Soldiers, he ever met!...when he died, His own Paratroopers wings, and those of a Screaming Eagles Paratrooper he became good friends with, were buried with him

 

I will, for the purposes of Politeness..NOT divulge what he thought about the Japanese and the Italians

Edited April 7, 2011 by UK_Widowmaker

[Flyby PC 23]

I think it's been said, but I agree that the war was already lost for the Germans before the US got involved, but who the winner was was all to play for.

 

More controversially, I frequently wonder whether Hitler was too early for WW2. If he'd postponed his war for another 18 months or two years, then Raeder might have had the number of U-boats he actually wanted to completely dominate the Atlantic, and Hitlers wonder weapons, the V1s and V2s, his jet fighters and bombers, would all have been at his disposal, and with enough fuel to function effectively. With more patience too, Hitler might also have 'finished off' the UK before attacking the Soviets. This would have freed German troops from the West, Scandanavia and North Africa, to turn on the Soviets.

 

The argument goes that allied productivity and rearmament would have out performed the German economy then, but I'm not so sure. If war had been declared perhaps yes, with peacetime production switched to munitions, but if peace remained possible, then I'm not so sure that would have happened. With ten times the number of U-boats, the UK economy would have been under seige, the US had no appetite for a war in Europe anyway, and much fewer lend lease trucks, tanks and aircraft would have made across the Atlantic to bolster the Soviets losses in their darkest hours. Don't forget also, prior to invading Poland, appeasement rendered Hilters expansionism 'legal'. Opinon suggests that his failing economy forced Hitlers hand in 1939, and that waiting longer would have bankrupted Germany. Perhaps it would, but then, Germany did finance 5 more years of war. Wouldn't it have survived 2 years at peace?

 

Thankfully it never happened that way, but it is still quite an uncomfortable notion to think about. In the early days, turning the tide to from crushing allied defeats to slim allied victories were often close run affairs.

 

Ironically, I think the Japanese were doomed to defeat as soon as they started their war in the Pacific, but I am less certain that Germany's eventual defeat was as inevitable as we all now assume with the benefit of hindsight. Could Hitler have won the war? Dread to think, but he possibly had the chance to... possibly......

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

There are so many factors, if's but's and maybe's....but I think it was probably entirely possible for Hitler to have won the War, if he hadn't royally p*ssed off the Russian's.

 

Did anyone see that fantastic film with Rutger Hauer 'Fatherland?'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109779/

 

well worth a watch if not

[JFM 18]

Hitler's primary interest was Lebensraum in the east; i.e., Russia. War with Britain and France was unexpected; after Munich, Hitler believed their resolve weak and they would not honor their Anglo/Franco-Polish Alliances. After attacking Poland, to Hitler's great surprise, they did honor them and declared war on Germany. Still, months of negotiation followed during the "Phoney War" where, in effect, Hitler said to them "Hey, we want no troubles with you. Let's talk and work this out," to which Chamberlain said "Okay, but get your troops out of Poland first and then we'll talk." Of course, Hitler wasn't going to do that. In the end he had to take care of France and England before he could focus on Russia. He did that pretty effectively in the short term, booting the English off the continent and back across the channel, and then defeating France. Britain fought valiantly during the subsequent Battle of Britain but Hitler was not able to overcome the English channel, which prevented the Wermacht Blitzkrieg from rolling north all the way to Dunnett Head.

 

In my mind this is most crucial because with England overrun and occupied, imagine the military hardships. Japanese attacks the US in late 1941 and it takes time to get our production rolling, so it's not until 1943 the B-17s and B-24s start rolling into England and we start to help in the air in that theatre--only in this scenario there is no England from which to operate the bombers, and the RAF bombers are gone. Now where? North Africa? Perhaps, but with England defeated who was going to stop Rommel? And with the Normandy invasion, where would the prepatory staging area be with England gone? North Africa? Again, it's in German hands, too. Probably have to come in from the East with the Soviets.

 

I don't know. In the end I don't believe Germany could have overcome US and USSR production. It's not a stretch to speculate that in such a scenario the war would have dragged on longer until after VJ day, at which point the Allies would be free to move all that manpower and weaponry to Europe. Also, nuclear weapons were available by then; not many, but more were being built. Nukes on Berlin? Possible.

 

(Edited for typo; probably missed others, too.)

Edited April 7, 2011 by JFM

[Javito1986 14]

There's an excellent history novel about the Battle of Britain called 'The Most Dangerous Enemy' by Stephen Bungay. I read it in High School on the recommendation of the BDG, the group of modders who were working on Rowan's Battle of Britain back then (now I think they're all members of A2A Productions).

 

Anyway, the main thesis is that Britain, not the USSR, not the US, was Hitler's most dangerous enemy specifically because of what you say JFM. Leaving Britain in his rear she was able to use her Navy to cause trouble in N. Africa, fight it out in the Atlantic, allow a base for U.S. bombers and eventually a launching point for the entire invasion of France.

 

Also he posits that the most critical moment of the Battle of Britain wasn't the Battle itself, but in May/June 1940 when Winston Churchill out-argued members of his own government and convinced them to continue fighting and not make peace, essentially forcing Britain to make a "sacrificial" stand since the war certainly f'd up her economy and forced the dissolution of the Empire.

 

I tend to agree with all that. There's good reason why Hitler didn't want to fight a war with Britain and he was pretty ticked off when Winnie refused to give up the fight. The USSR was certainly the most powerful of Nazi Germany's enemies overall, but I don't think things would have gone so badly for them there if they hadn't had to commit so many resources to the Western theater. I doubt they would have "won", but I certainly think they could have held on to the ground they took and not have been so summarily swept aside by the Barbarossa Offensive in '44.

 

IMO we owe a lot to ol Winnie. If he hadn't stood up when he did Britain might well have made peace and things would have gone very, very differently. Frankly I don't know what the U.S. could have done. Yes Africa, but where in the world could they stage the invasion from? Just sail the invasion fleet from New York to the Ivory Coast? With U-Boats and Stukas all over? Nah. There just would not have been a "Western Front". We would have fought Japan and then fought the Third Reich at a later time... maybe. The U.S. would have been first to develop nukes, but Germany would have had plenty of those V2s and jet fighters... would have been an interesting show for sure. Glad it didn't happen

[Javito1986 14]

I think it's been said, but I agree that the war was already lost for the Germans before the US got involved, but who the winner was was all to play for.

 

More controversially, I frequently wonder whether Hitler was too early for WW2. If he'd postponed his war for another 18 months or two years, then Raeder might have had the number of U-boats he actually wanted to completely dominate the Atlantic, and Hitlers wonder weapons, the V1s and V2s, his jet fighters and bombers, would all have been at his disposal, and with enough fuel to function effectively. With more patience too, Hitler might also have 'finished off' the UK before attacking the Soviets. This would have freed German troops from the West, Scandanavia and North Africa, to turn on the Soviets.

 

The argument goes that allied productivity and rearmament would have out performed the German economy then, but I'm not so sure. If war had been declared perhaps yes, with peacetime production switched to munitions, but if peace remained possible, then I'm not so sure that would have happened. With ten times the number of U-boats, the UK economy would have been under seige, the US had no appetite for a war in Europe anyway, and much fewer lend lease trucks, tanks and aircraft would have made across the Atlantic to bolster the Soviets losses in their darkest hours. Don't forget also, prior to invading Poland, appeasement rendered Hilters expansionism 'legal'. Opinon suggests that his failing economy forced Hitlers hand in 1939, and that waiting longer would have bankrupted Germany. Perhaps it would, but then, Germany did finance 5 more years of war. Wouldn't it have survived 2 years at peace?

 

Thankfully it never happened that way, but it is still quite an uncomfortable notion to think about. In the early days, turning the tide to from crushing allied defeats to slim allied victories were often close run affairs.

 

Ironically, I think the Japanese were doomed to defeat as soon as they started their war in the Pacific, but I am less certain that Germany's eventual defeat was as inevitable as we all now assume with the benefit of hindsight. Could Hitler have won the war? Dread to think, but he possibly had the chance to... possibly......

 

 

 

 

Germany actually had outstanding production capacity once it switched to total war mode. Remember how Me109 production reached an all time high in 1944 even with all that strategic bombing going on! None of the guys "in the know" (i.e. the career 'Prussian' officers who'd had command positions in WW1 and knew what they were talking about) wanted a war in 1939. They knew they weren't ready for it, they wanted to wait a few years for precisely the reasons you say. More U-Boats, more planes, etc. Germany is one hell of a strong country though, I can't fathom anyone else holding off seemingly the entire damn world on so many fronts for so long given the limited resources she was working with.

 

 

 

[Hasse Wind 46]

Germany actually had outstanding production capacity once it switched to total war mode. Remember how Me109 production reached an all time high in 1944 even with all that strategic bombing going on! None of the guys "in the know" (i.e. the career 'Prussian' officers who'd had command positions in WW1 and knew what they were talking about) wanted a war in 1939. They knew they weren't ready for it, they wanted to wait a few years for precisely the reasons you say. More U-Boats, more planes, etc. Germany is one hell of a strong country though, I can't fathom anyone else holding off seemingly the entire damn world on so many fronts for so long given the limited resources she was working with.

 

German production figures would have been even better without the strategic bombings. And the switch to total war came far too late - only in 1942, when Speer took over the Armaments Ministry, did the Germans slowly start making full use of their resources. But that wasn't enough. Even with desparate and brutal measures, like the use of slave labour, Germany lagged seriously behind in the production battle. The combined might of the Allies was simpy too much. The Soviet Union alone was able to produce many more tanks and artillery, Britain was always able to produce more aircraft, and when you add the incredible economic might of the United States into the equation, Germany had no chance at all. If the US economy had been mobilized as thoroughly as the German economy, the production numbers would have been even more in favour of the Allies. But there was never need for such a total mobilization of American resources.

 

I remember reading Albert Speer's comment that when he became the Armaments Minister, he accepted the position with a firm belief in German chances. But when he met with some leading economists, he found out that they had already calculated Germany had in practice already lost the war when the United States became involved. Speer didn't believe them at first, but within a couple of years he came to the same conclusion. And even with Speer leading the Armaments Ministry, the Nazi system of government was so ineffective and corrupted and full of party bosses backstabbing each other that there was much room for improvement in matters of economy. For example Hitler didn't want to see too many German women working in the factories, because he believed such work was not suitable for women, who were supposed to take care of their homes and families. But in Allied countries, like Britain and the USSR, women were extensively used in factories, which helped to increase war production even when most of the men were in the armed forces. Slave labour was a poor replacement for highly motivated German workers.

 

So it can be said that Germany was never ready for long war. It was exactly what Hitler wanted to avoid, and for a while he seemed to succeed. Fortunately he didn't, in the end. No matter how long Germany had spent preparing for war, they would never have been able to outproduce all the other great powers combined. We mustn't forget that the other powers weren't exactly waiting calmly for Germany to build more weapons - they were also devoting more and more resources into armaments in the final years of the 1930's.